Bayes theorem, confusion between $P(X|Z)$ and $P(Z|X)$

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












In a problem I'm trying to solve it states:



There is a machine displays the inserted credit. Unfortunately, the display is broken. At time $k = 3$, we can infer from the display that the inserted credit is either $2$ or $3$, but certainly not $0$ or $1$.
Without taking into account the additional information provided by the display, the state x(3) has the probability distribution



$f(x_3=0) = 0.1,$



$f(x_3=1) = 0.2,$



$f(x_3=2) = 0.2,$



$f(x_3=3) = 0.5.$



What is the probability distribution of $x(3)$ given the information from the display?



Now my reasoing was the following: the sentence we can infer from the display that the inserted credit is either $2$ or $3$, but certainly not $0$ or $1$ is equivalent to say: given the state of the display, we can say there is $50%$ probability that the coin is $2$ and $50%$ probability that the coin is $3$.
So the probability distribution asked would be simply $50%$ for $2$ and $50%$ for $3$.



But from the solution of the exercise, it looks at the problem from another perspective. It states that if we can infer something from the display means that we can depict the conditional probability of $z$ given $x$ (and not the opposite as I thought) and then uses the prior information $f(x_3)$ and this likelihood ($f(z|x_3)$) with the bayes theorem to arrive to the solution.



Why is my reasoning wrong?










share|cite|improve this question























  • Since you haven't really given any reason, it's hard to say where it's wrong. You'd need to explain how you arrived at the erroneous belief that "we can infer from the display that the inserted credit is either $2$ or $3$" is equivalent to "there is a $50%$ probability that the credit is $2$ and a $50%$ probability that the credit is $3$". My guess would be that you probably did so by an erroneous application of the principle of indifference, but so far, that's just a guess.
    – joriki
    Aug 30 at 6:56











  • Well my reasoning is the following: the display itself has an own probability distribution. At time k=3 we are sure about it state, because we can read it on the screen. Because it's broken we can't really tell if what it's written it's true, but because we can infer that the inserted credit is either 2 or 3 we can say that given the state of the display the will be 2 or 3 coin with equal probability, because we don't have any further information
    – Tommaso Bendinelli
    Aug 30 at 7:03














up vote
0
down vote

favorite












In a problem I'm trying to solve it states:



There is a machine displays the inserted credit. Unfortunately, the display is broken. At time $k = 3$, we can infer from the display that the inserted credit is either $2$ or $3$, but certainly not $0$ or $1$.
Without taking into account the additional information provided by the display, the state x(3) has the probability distribution



$f(x_3=0) = 0.1,$



$f(x_3=1) = 0.2,$



$f(x_3=2) = 0.2,$



$f(x_3=3) = 0.5.$



What is the probability distribution of $x(3)$ given the information from the display?



Now my reasoing was the following: the sentence we can infer from the display that the inserted credit is either $2$ or $3$, but certainly not $0$ or $1$ is equivalent to say: given the state of the display, we can say there is $50%$ probability that the coin is $2$ and $50%$ probability that the coin is $3$.
So the probability distribution asked would be simply $50%$ for $2$ and $50%$ for $3$.



But from the solution of the exercise, it looks at the problem from another perspective. It states that if we can infer something from the display means that we can depict the conditional probability of $z$ given $x$ (and not the opposite as I thought) and then uses the prior information $f(x_3)$ and this likelihood ($f(z|x_3)$) with the bayes theorem to arrive to the solution.



Why is my reasoning wrong?










share|cite|improve this question























  • Since you haven't really given any reason, it's hard to say where it's wrong. You'd need to explain how you arrived at the erroneous belief that "we can infer from the display that the inserted credit is either $2$ or $3$" is equivalent to "there is a $50%$ probability that the credit is $2$ and a $50%$ probability that the credit is $3$". My guess would be that you probably did so by an erroneous application of the principle of indifference, but so far, that's just a guess.
    – joriki
    Aug 30 at 6:56











  • Well my reasoning is the following: the display itself has an own probability distribution. At time k=3 we are sure about it state, because we can read it on the screen. Because it's broken we can't really tell if what it's written it's true, but because we can infer that the inserted credit is either 2 or 3 we can say that given the state of the display the will be 2 or 3 coin with equal probability, because we don't have any further information
    – Tommaso Bendinelli
    Aug 30 at 7:03












up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











In a problem I'm trying to solve it states:



There is a machine displays the inserted credit. Unfortunately, the display is broken. At time $k = 3$, we can infer from the display that the inserted credit is either $2$ or $3$, but certainly not $0$ or $1$.
Without taking into account the additional information provided by the display, the state x(3) has the probability distribution



$f(x_3=0) = 0.1,$



$f(x_3=1) = 0.2,$



$f(x_3=2) = 0.2,$



$f(x_3=3) = 0.5.$



What is the probability distribution of $x(3)$ given the information from the display?



Now my reasoing was the following: the sentence we can infer from the display that the inserted credit is either $2$ or $3$, but certainly not $0$ or $1$ is equivalent to say: given the state of the display, we can say there is $50%$ probability that the coin is $2$ and $50%$ probability that the coin is $3$.
So the probability distribution asked would be simply $50%$ for $2$ and $50%$ for $3$.



But from the solution of the exercise, it looks at the problem from another perspective. It states that if we can infer something from the display means that we can depict the conditional probability of $z$ given $x$ (and not the opposite as I thought) and then uses the prior information $f(x_3)$ and this likelihood ($f(z|x_3)$) with the bayes theorem to arrive to the solution.



Why is my reasoning wrong?










share|cite|improve this question















In a problem I'm trying to solve it states:



There is a machine displays the inserted credit. Unfortunately, the display is broken. At time $k = 3$, we can infer from the display that the inserted credit is either $2$ or $3$, but certainly not $0$ or $1$.
Without taking into account the additional information provided by the display, the state x(3) has the probability distribution



$f(x_3=0) = 0.1,$



$f(x_3=1) = 0.2,$



$f(x_3=2) = 0.2,$



$f(x_3=3) = 0.5.$



What is the probability distribution of $x(3)$ given the information from the display?



Now my reasoing was the following: the sentence we can infer from the display that the inserted credit is either $2$ or $3$, but certainly not $0$ or $1$ is equivalent to say: given the state of the display, we can say there is $50%$ probability that the coin is $2$ and $50%$ probability that the coin is $3$.
So the probability distribution asked would be simply $50%$ for $2$ and $50%$ for $3$.



But from the solution of the exercise, it looks at the problem from another perspective. It states that if we can infer something from the display means that we can depict the conditional probability of $z$ given $x$ (and not the opposite as I thought) and then uses the prior information $f(x_3)$ and this likelihood ($f(z|x_3)$) with the bayes theorem to arrive to the solution.



Why is my reasoning wrong?







bayes-theorem






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 30 at 8:57









Kenta S

1,1741418




1,1741418










asked Aug 30 at 6:46









Tommaso Bendinelli

456




456











  • Since you haven't really given any reason, it's hard to say where it's wrong. You'd need to explain how you arrived at the erroneous belief that "we can infer from the display that the inserted credit is either $2$ or $3$" is equivalent to "there is a $50%$ probability that the credit is $2$ and a $50%$ probability that the credit is $3$". My guess would be that you probably did so by an erroneous application of the principle of indifference, but so far, that's just a guess.
    – joriki
    Aug 30 at 6:56











  • Well my reasoning is the following: the display itself has an own probability distribution. At time k=3 we are sure about it state, because we can read it on the screen. Because it's broken we can't really tell if what it's written it's true, but because we can infer that the inserted credit is either 2 or 3 we can say that given the state of the display the will be 2 or 3 coin with equal probability, because we don't have any further information
    – Tommaso Bendinelli
    Aug 30 at 7:03
















  • Since you haven't really given any reason, it's hard to say where it's wrong. You'd need to explain how you arrived at the erroneous belief that "we can infer from the display that the inserted credit is either $2$ or $3$" is equivalent to "there is a $50%$ probability that the credit is $2$ and a $50%$ probability that the credit is $3$". My guess would be that you probably did so by an erroneous application of the principle of indifference, but so far, that's just a guess.
    – joriki
    Aug 30 at 6:56











  • Well my reasoning is the following: the display itself has an own probability distribution. At time k=3 we are sure about it state, because we can read it on the screen. Because it's broken we can't really tell if what it's written it's true, but because we can infer that the inserted credit is either 2 or 3 we can say that given the state of the display the will be 2 or 3 coin with equal probability, because we don't have any further information
    – Tommaso Bendinelli
    Aug 30 at 7:03















Since you haven't really given any reason, it's hard to say where it's wrong. You'd need to explain how you arrived at the erroneous belief that "we can infer from the display that the inserted credit is either $2$ or $3$" is equivalent to "there is a $50%$ probability that the credit is $2$ and a $50%$ probability that the credit is $3$". My guess would be that you probably did so by an erroneous application of the principle of indifference, but so far, that's just a guess.
– joriki
Aug 30 at 6:56





Since you haven't really given any reason, it's hard to say where it's wrong. You'd need to explain how you arrived at the erroneous belief that "we can infer from the display that the inserted credit is either $2$ or $3$" is equivalent to "there is a $50%$ probability that the credit is $2$ and a $50%$ probability that the credit is $3$". My guess would be that you probably did so by an erroneous application of the principle of indifference, but so far, that's just a guess.
– joriki
Aug 30 at 6:56













Well my reasoning is the following: the display itself has an own probability distribution. At time k=3 we are sure about it state, because we can read it on the screen. Because it's broken we can't really tell if what it's written it's true, but because we can infer that the inserted credit is either 2 or 3 we can say that given the state of the display the will be 2 or 3 coin with equal probability, because we don't have any further information
– Tommaso Bendinelli
Aug 30 at 7:03




Well my reasoning is the following: the display itself has an own probability distribution. At time k=3 we are sure about it state, because we can read it on the screen. Because it's broken we can't really tell if what it's written it's true, but because we can infer that the inserted credit is either 2 or 3 we can say that given the state of the display the will be 2 or 3 coin with equal probability, because we don't have any further information
– Tommaso Bendinelli
Aug 30 at 7:03










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote



accepted










You're applying the principle of indifference where it doesn't apply. There are two requirements for that principle to apply. First, there must be symmetry among the alternatives (or, as the Wikipedia article puts it, they must be “indistinguishable except for their names”). This is not the case here – the credit states $2$ and $3$ are distinguishable, as you can readily convince yourself by replacing $3$ with $1000$: You probably wouldn't believe that the credit states $2$ and $1000$ are equiprobable. The second requirement is the one you state, that we don't have further information. In the present case, we do have further information, namely, the given a priori distribution, which again distinguishes between the credit states $2$ and $3$. Thus the principle of indifference doesn't apply.






share|cite|improve this answer
















  • 1




    That's make completely sense! Thank You!
    – Tommaso Bendinelli
    Aug 30 at 13:29

















up vote
-1
down vote













OK this is an interesting problem. So we know that inserted credit equals $2$ or $3$. Let us try to calculate the probability that the inserted credit is $3$ given that we know it is $2$ or $3$. I will just call the inserted credit $x$. We use the formula $P(A|B)=P(A wedge B)/P(B)$. Where $A$ is $x=3$ and $B$ is $x=2 vee x=3$. This becomes $P(x=3 | (x=2 vee x=3))$. The fact that $A$ implies $B$ and so $P(A wedge B)=P(A)$ is important to keep in mind. We can calculate this as $0.5/0.7=0.71$. By a similar method, we can work out that the probability that the display read $2$ is $0.2/0.7=0.29$. These add up to $1$ which is good news. It must be one of them! Another way to have come at this would have been to say the answer must be $2$ or $3$ so the probabilities of these scores must split in the ration $0.2:0.5$ or $2:5$ or $0.29:0.71$.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • The OP states that a solution of this kind is already available; the question asked not to provide such a solution but to explain why the alternative solution is wrong.
    – joriki
    Aug 30 at 8:17










Your Answer




StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2899213%2fbayes-theorem-confusion-between-pxz-and-pzx%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest






























2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes








2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
1
down vote



accepted










You're applying the principle of indifference where it doesn't apply. There are two requirements for that principle to apply. First, there must be symmetry among the alternatives (or, as the Wikipedia article puts it, they must be “indistinguishable except for their names”). This is not the case here – the credit states $2$ and $3$ are distinguishable, as you can readily convince yourself by replacing $3$ with $1000$: You probably wouldn't believe that the credit states $2$ and $1000$ are equiprobable. The second requirement is the one you state, that we don't have further information. In the present case, we do have further information, namely, the given a priori distribution, which again distinguishes between the credit states $2$ and $3$. Thus the principle of indifference doesn't apply.






share|cite|improve this answer
















  • 1




    That's make completely sense! Thank You!
    – Tommaso Bendinelli
    Aug 30 at 13:29














up vote
1
down vote



accepted










You're applying the principle of indifference where it doesn't apply. There are two requirements for that principle to apply. First, there must be symmetry among the alternatives (or, as the Wikipedia article puts it, they must be “indistinguishable except for their names”). This is not the case here – the credit states $2$ and $3$ are distinguishable, as you can readily convince yourself by replacing $3$ with $1000$: You probably wouldn't believe that the credit states $2$ and $1000$ are equiprobable. The second requirement is the one you state, that we don't have further information. In the present case, we do have further information, namely, the given a priori distribution, which again distinguishes between the credit states $2$ and $3$. Thus the principle of indifference doesn't apply.






share|cite|improve this answer
















  • 1




    That's make completely sense! Thank You!
    – Tommaso Bendinelli
    Aug 30 at 13:29












up vote
1
down vote



accepted







up vote
1
down vote



accepted






You're applying the principle of indifference where it doesn't apply. There are two requirements for that principle to apply. First, there must be symmetry among the alternatives (or, as the Wikipedia article puts it, they must be “indistinguishable except for their names”). This is not the case here – the credit states $2$ and $3$ are distinguishable, as you can readily convince yourself by replacing $3$ with $1000$: You probably wouldn't believe that the credit states $2$ and $1000$ are equiprobable. The second requirement is the one you state, that we don't have further information. In the present case, we do have further information, namely, the given a priori distribution, which again distinguishes between the credit states $2$ and $3$. Thus the principle of indifference doesn't apply.






share|cite|improve this answer












You're applying the principle of indifference where it doesn't apply. There are two requirements for that principle to apply. First, there must be symmetry among the alternatives (or, as the Wikipedia article puts it, they must be “indistinguishable except for their names”). This is not the case here – the credit states $2$ and $3$ are distinguishable, as you can readily convince yourself by replacing $3$ with $1000$: You probably wouldn't believe that the credit states $2$ and $1000$ are equiprobable. The second requirement is the one you state, that we don't have further information. In the present case, we do have further information, namely, the given a priori distribution, which again distinguishes between the credit states $2$ and $3$. Thus the principle of indifference doesn't apply.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Aug 30 at 7:09









joriki

167k10180333




167k10180333







  • 1




    That's make completely sense! Thank You!
    – Tommaso Bendinelli
    Aug 30 at 13:29












  • 1




    That's make completely sense! Thank You!
    – Tommaso Bendinelli
    Aug 30 at 13:29







1




1




That's make completely sense! Thank You!
– Tommaso Bendinelli
Aug 30 at 13:29




That's make completely sense! Thank You!
– Tommaso Bendinelli
Aug 30 at 13:29










up vote
-1
down vote













OK this is an interesting problem. So we know that inserted credit equals $2$ or $3$. Let us try to calculate the probability that the inserted credit is $3$ given that we know it is $2$ or $3$. I will just call the inserted credit $x$. We use the formula $P(A|B)=P(A wedge B)/P(B)$. Where $A$ is $x=3$ and $B$ is $x=2 vee x=3$. This becomes $P(x=3 | (x=2 vee x=3))$. The fact that $A$ implies $B$ and so $P(A wedge B)=P(A)$ is important to keep in mind. We can calculate this as $0.5/0.7=0.71$. By a similar method, we can work out that the probability that the display read $2$ is $0.2/0.7=0.29$. These add up to $1$ which is good news. It must be one of them! Another way to have come at this would have been to say the answer must be $2$ or $3$ so the probabilities of these scores must split in the ration $0.2:0.5$ or $2:5$ or $0.29:0.71$.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • The OP states that a solution of this kind is already available; the question asked not to provide such a solution but to explain why the alternative solution is wrong.
    – joriki
    Aug 30 at 8:17














up vote
-1
down vote













OK this is an interesting problem. So we know that inserted credit equals $2$ or $3$. Let us try to calculate the probability that the inserted credit is $3$ given that we know it is $2$ or $3$. I will just call the inserted credit $x$. We use the formula $P(A|B)=P(A wedge B)/P(B)$. Where $A$ is $x=3$ and $B$ is $x=2 vee x=3$. This becomes $P(x=3 | (x=2 vee x=3))$. The fact that $A$ implies $B$ and so $P(A wedge B)=P(A)$ is important to keep in mind. We can calculate this as $0.5/0.7=0.71$. By a similar method, we can work out that the probability that the display read $2$ is $0.2/0.7=0.29$. These add up to $1$ which is good news. It must be one of them! Another way to have come at this would have been to say the answer must be $2$ or $3$ so the probabilities of these scores must split in the ration $0.2:0.5$ or $2:5$ or $0.29:0.71$.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • The OP states that a solution of this kind is already available; the question asked not to provide such a solution but to explain why the alternative solution is wrong.
    – joriki
    Aug 30 at 8:17












up vote
-1
down vote










up vote
-1
down vote









OK this is an interesting problem. So we know that inserted credit equals $2$ or $3$. Let us try to calculate the probability that the inserted credit is $3$ given that we know it is $2$ or $3$. I will just call the inserted credit $x$. We use the formula $P(A|B)=P(A wedge B)/P(B)$. Where $A$ is $x=3$ and $B$ is $x=2 vee x=3$. This becomes $P(x=3 | (x=2 vee x=3))$. The fact that $A$ implies $B$ and so $P(A wedge B)=P(A)$ is important to keep in mind. We can calculate this as $0.5/0.7=0.71$. By a similar method, we can work out that the probability that the display read $2$ is $0.2/0.7=0.29$. These add up to $1$ which is good news. It must be one of them! Another way to have come at this would have been to say the answer must be $2$ or $3$ so the probabilities of these scores must split in the ration $0.2:0.5$ or $2:5$ or $0.29:0.71$.






share|cite|improve this answer














OK this is an interesting problem. So we know that inserted credit equals $2$ or $3$. Let us try to calculate the probability that the inserted credit is $3$ given that we know it is $2$ or $3$. I will just call the inserted credit $x$. We use the formula $P(A|B)=P(A wedge B)/P(B)$. Where $A$ is $x=3$ and $B$ is $x=2 vee x=3$. This becomes $P(x=3 | (x=2 vee x=3))$. The fact that $A$ implies $B$ and so $P(A wedge B)=P(A)$ is important to keep in mind. We can calculate this as $0.5/0.7=0.71$. By a similar method, we can work out that the probability that the display read $2$ is $0.2/0.7=0.29$. These add up to $1$ which is good news. It must be one of them! Another way to have come at this would have been to say the answer must be $2$ or $3$ so the probabilities of these scores must split in the ration $0.2:0.5$ or $2:5$ or $0.29:0.71$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Aug 30 at 8:20

























answered Aug 30 at 7:20









Simon Terrington

41526




41526











  • The OP states that a solution of this kind is already available; the question asked not to provide such a solution but to explain why the alternative solution is wrong.
    – joriki
    Aug 30 at 8:17
















  • The OP states that a solution of this kind is already available; the question asked not to provide such a solution but to explain why the alternative solution is wrong.
    – joriki
    Aug 30 at 8:17















The OP states that a solution of this kind is already available; the question asked not to provide such a solution but to explain why the alternative solution is wrong.
– joriki
Aug 30 at 8:17




The OP states that a solution of this kind is already available; the question asked not to provide such a solution but to explain why the alternative solution is wrong.
– joriki
Aug 30 at 8:17

















 

draft saved


draft discarded















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2899213%2fbayes-theorem-confusion-between-pxz-and-pzx%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest













































































這個網誌中的熱門文章

How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

Mutual Information Always Non-negative

Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?